' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 26-7- 2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No,295 of 1999 and Murder Reference No,353 of 1999.
2. The facts in brief are that Ghulam Hussain complainant was working as Assistant (Munshi) at the brick kiln of Jahangir Khan, situate at a metalled road Ronda Thatha Gurmani, within the Revenue estate of village Dogar Klasra. In routine, he reached his house in village Jhandeer Darija at about Deegarwela and saw that his son Mureed Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazoo, Riaz Hussain sons of Kalo and Ghulam Qadir alias Nabi son of Pathana were busy in cultivating sugarcane in his land, which is nearby his house. In the evening, Muhammad Nawaz and others took meals in his house and then went to their house, which is at a distance of 3/4 acres. At about 8-30/9-00 p.m.
Muhammad Nawaz again came to house of the complainant and took his son Mureed Hussain to his house. He alongwith his other family members slept. At about 1-00 a.m. (night) on hearing commotion, he alongwith his son Manzoor Hussain, and his nephew Muhammad Anwar went towards house of Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazoo. Upon reaching there, they saw in the torch-light that Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazoo, Riaz Hussain and Ghulam Qadir alias Nabi armed with hatchet, Chhurra (dagger type) and a Sota, respectively had tied Mureed Hussain with the string alongwith a Khamba inside the room. Within their view, Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazoo delivered hatchet blows on the neck of Mureed Hussain and Ghulam Qadir, caused Sota blows on different parts of his body. Mureed Hussain succumbed to his injuries. In the meanwhile, Riaz Hussain brought Mst. Zarina wife of Muhammad Nawaz in the room by dragging her. Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Qadir caught hold of her from her arms and laid her down. Riaz Hussain slaughtered her with his Chhurri (dagger type), who too met her death instantaneously. The complainant alongwith his companions tried to intervene, but all the three accused threatened them with dire consequences. Since they were empty-handed, they did not go near them. They raised hue and cry, whereupon so many residents of the village attracted to the spot. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons.
3. Motive behind the occurrence is that Muhammad Nawaz suspected illicit relations between Mst.
Zarina and Murred Hussain and for that reason Muhammad Nawaz and others, after hiving counselled with each other committed murder of Mureed Hussain.
4. After usual investigation the accused was sent up to face trial vide judgment dated 2-9-1999 the learned trial Judge convicted the accused under section 302(a)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to death each on two counts. They were acquitted of the charge under section 365, P.P.C.
5. The convicts filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was partly accepted and their death sentence was altered to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years on both counts. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was allowed to the accused. Hence, this petition for enhancement of sentence of the accused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, inter alia, contended that the High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective, that the sentence awarded by the trial Court should not have been modified and the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and that the judgment of the High Court may be set aside.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely scanned the record. The High Court did consider the case and had minutely examined the evidence available on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court was not justified in modifying the sentence, is not tenable. The impugned judgment is based on sound and cogent reasons. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "14. We have patiently heard and soberly considered, arguments addressed at the bar by both the sides and gone through the evidence with able assistance of their learned counsel. The appellants lived at a distance of three/four acres from venue of occurrence. It is nighttime occurrence taking place in the month of December. In the month of December, when there is a chill cold, generally the people remain confined in their rooms to avoid effects of cold. The witnesses were fast asleep and woke up on hearing commotion.
' They left for the place of occurrence and on reaching there witnessed the occurrence in the torch light. The fact remains that the occurrence had taken place in the house of Muhammad Nawaz appellant, which is situated at a distance of three/four acres from house of the complainant. Noise raised by any individual could not be heard by the witnesses from such a long distance, more especially when they were sleeping in the rooms. Then the next question is, was it virtually possible for the victims to raise hue and cry, when they were under attack and sustained injuries of serious nature involving vital organs of the body. The answer to all these questions in our view would be in the negative. Availability of the witnesses at such odd hours of night at the place of occurrence is not believable. We do not consider them as genuine witnesses.
15. We find that there are different types of wounds available on both th,e deceased. Both the sides have not come out with the whole truth. They have endeavoured their best to build up the case according to their own choice. There is excessive and unwarranted delay of seven hours in lodging the F.I.R.. This time appears to have been utilized by the complainant side to build up story in the present form after due deliberations and conference with each other. No polluted hand can be permitted to touch pure fountains of justice. We disbelieve both the versions.
16. As regards motive, it is mentioned in clear-cut terms in the first information report that Muhammad Nawaz appellant entertained a strong suspicion of illicit liaison in between his wife Mst. Zarina and Mureed Hussain deceased, but in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated that when he reached back from Dera Ghazi Khan to his abode at 10-00 p.m., he found both of them in a compromising position. On seeing this, his anger knew no bounds and killed both of them. Extent, nature and number of injuries clearly shows that the number of assailants was more than one. The fact that Mureed Hussain deceased was taken by Muhammad Nawaz appellant to his, house is not believable. This aspect of the matter does not appeal to reason or logic. The trial Court has already acquitted them of the charge under section 365, P.P.C., which also lends support to our view. As the deceased had developed illicit sex connection with wife of Muhammad Nawaz appellant, he opted to visit her during tense hours of dark night, where he was caught red-handed by the appellants and done to death out of Ghairat. Evidence relating to swabs also appears to have been dishonestly held by the prosecution. We are fully satisfied with regard to the guilt of the appellants. This double murder has been committed under grave and sudden provocation, out of family honour and Ghairat, when they saw the deceased committing Zina."
8. We further found that there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no jurisdictional error or misconstruction of law in the impugned judgment. Moreover, question of general public importance as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not involved.
9. The petition is without merit and substance, which must fail grid the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.